When Bill Clinton came to Microsoft to give a speech, he was received warmly by a crowd who were impressed by his wisdom and his view of a better, more helpful and compassionate world. People naturally are drawn to and appreciate an intelligent, well-spoken person who can think on their feet. He touched on a lot of issues and he had a lot of great one-liners in dealing with world events such as "Osama bin Laden likes technology just like the west likes technology. But bin Laden likes it exclusively and the west likes it inclusively". While the crowd was left pondering this gem, Clinton would either throw out either another line of insight, or a line of wisdom or a line of encouragement. This left the group constantly intrigued and mentally stimulated. There was a question-and-answer period at the end of this speech and Clinton answered each with detail and precision. One woman asked if he could hold a Cabinet position in a Hillary presidency. Specifically, I believe she asked if he could be secretary of state. The former president said, "That is a good question. The answer is no." And then he explained that a law was passed – I believe during the Lyndon Johnson administration – that said an immediate family member of the president can not be in the cabinet. This had something do to with Bobby Kennedy being in John Kennedy's Cabinet and a president can not or should not have to fire a family member. President Clinton went on to say that he thought that this was actually a very good idea. This makes me wonder because Hillary was in charge of revamping the Health Care system during Bill Clinton's presidency. But on the other hand, this really was not a position of power.
This leads me to the first reason why Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee for president. I always suspected that the only reason why many people liked Hillary Clinton was because of the run-off charisma from her husband. When I first noticed her surfacing as a candidate for president, I was at a loss as to why so many people liked her and they seemed to like her very much. I went to several liberal and progressive web forums. They seemed to be upset by my just asking the question as if I was questioning some divine prophecy. Trying to get into the heads and understanding how liberals think is often difficult. Ann Coulter might be wrong about a lot of things, but one thing I think she gets right is that Liberalism is like a church. You can not question the divine doctrine or those who are appointed the Pope of the Church of Liberalism – doing so will get you banished from the Progressive web forums. Regardless, without any other reason for supposing why people liked Hillary, I was left with only the name recognition and the face recognition and their subconscious appreciation of happier times. When all possible reasons are discounted, the only reason left, no matter how improbable, is the only possible explanation. My suspicions were confirmed by several people who would openly admit "I miss Bill" when I am talking about having a president Hillary. Well, it is time for me to officially burst this bubble. As Bill Clinton said himself, he can not be placed into any real position of power in a Hillary presidency. So now ask yourself this. If you could erase Bill Clinton from the picture – if you could remove the association between Bill and Hillary, would you still be excited about Hillary Clinton being president? You might tell yourself that since Hillary seemed to be a powerful player when Bill was president, it might work the other way. It would not. The two have very different personalities and ideologies and interpersonal skills and management styles. Bill is a charismatic intellectual while Hillary is a driven, ambitious and power-hungry leftist ideologue. Switch the seats of power and you have a very different administration and, as a result, a more troubling future for our country. Being the wife of Bill Clinton should not be a reason why you would want to support Hillary. A Hillary Clinton Presidency will not be any way like the Bill Clinton Presidency.
Are you inferring that a Bill Clinton presidency was good?
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
She'd be better than Obama; she couldn't get anything done.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego:She'd be better than Obama; she couldn't get anything done
Very true.
This guy has spam at least a couple of other forums:
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/78936/reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-not-be-the-democratic-nominee-for-president.htm
http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/29654-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-not.html
I'm sure we'll see this text posted in a lot more...
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
BlackSheep: This guy has spam at least a couple of other forums: http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/78936/reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-not-be-the-democratic-nominee-for-president.htm http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/29654-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-not.html I'm sure we'll see this text posted in a lot more...
Oh.. ok.. I was kind of curious. Thanks.
Good catch, it did seem... strange. Probably an Obama supporter posting this on every possible political forum.
Totally. Take a look when he joined.
mr_anonymous: Are you inferring that a Bill Clinton presidency was good?
No I am not.
But, like other socialist leaders, he made people feel good about themselves.
Posting in several forums is not spamming.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Posting in many forums is not spamming
I think that is only one reason.
Ego: She'd be better than Obama; she couldn't get anything done.
Not true.
She could persue any "conservative" policy unopposed. When Bush kills arabs he atleast is met by nominal resistence. Hillary would be cheered from the right and left.
Peace
Leftist policies are nearly impossible to dismantle; rightist policies are so much easier.
And what do you mean by "killing arabs"?
Ego: Leftist policies are nearly impossible to dismantle; rightist policies are so much easier.
I agree. How long did it take to get rid of most of the New Deal programs? Oh.. wait, the majority of them are still here, and the ones that are gone have only been replaced, not eliminated.
I also think that Hilary would have a hard time getting anything done because the right flat out hates her. It doesnt matter what she wants to push, the right will oppose it soley because it is Hilary. It's politics.
Edit for clarity
So what Obama could do would be bad and Hillary at least would not damage anything because she cannot get anything done? I am not sure that is logical. Is this what you mean?
Ego: Good catch, it did seem... strange. Probably an Obama supporter posting this on every possible political forum.
No, I am not. Just anti-Hillary. And posting on many forums is not spamming.
Ego:And what do you mean by "killing arabs"?
Causing the deaths of people who speak arabic.
Ego:Leftist policies are nearly impossible to dismantle; rightist policies are so much easier.
Says the righty. You think the Department of Homeland Security is going anywhere?
The policies that stick are the bipartisan policies, like the FDA.
Does that mean you are anti-Bill too?
JonBostwick: Ego:And what do you mean by "killing arabs"? Causing the deaths of people who speak arabic. Ego:Leftist policies are nearly impossible to dismantle; rightist policies are so much easier. Says the righty. You think the Department of Homeland Security is going anywhere? The policies that stick are the bipartisan policies, like the FDA.
Says the leftist.
Rightist policies don't create perpetual votes; leftist policies do. Not only are leftist policies incredibly electorally difficult to dismantle, they are incredibly logistically difficult, too. When you have tens of millions of people relying on welfare and social security, even if you could electorally dismantle them, you'd have tens of millions of people without their main source of income.
Ego:Says the leftist.
I self describe as right wing, actually.
Ego:Rightist policies don't create perpetual votes;
Corporate welfare.
Corporate welfare creates a tiny fraction of perpetual votes compared to normal welfare systems, and I'd say that "subsidies" are usually a left-wing policy.
More important than whether a program is called "leftist" or "rightist", however, is how many perpetual votes it creates and how hard it will be to dismantle. For example, drug laws create a tiny fraction of perpetual votes compared to social security, and it would be logistically much easier to get rid of them.